SSRG International Journal of Civil Engineering Volume 8 Issue 6, 38-47, June 2021

ISSN: 2348 – 8352 /doi:10.14445/23488352/IJCE-V8I6P105 ©2021 Seventh Sense Research Group®

Adhesion Factor of Large Diameter Bored Piles in

Soft to Stiff Clay in the Sei Alalak Bridge
Replacement Project‒South Kalimantan, Indonesia
Andika Mulrosha1, Yulian Firmana Arifin2
1
Civil Engineering Master Program, University of Lambung Mangkurat, Banjarmasin, Indonesia
2
Engineer Profession Education, University of Lambung Mangkurat, Banjarbaru, Indonesia

Received Date: 09 May 2021

Revised Date: 11 June 2021
Accepted Date: 22 June 2021

Abstract - The purpose of this research was to determine the
adhesion factors of soft to stiff clay using both analytical
and numerical methods. The data used was from the Sei
Alalak Bridge Replacement Project in Banjarmasin, South
Kalimantan, which included a field investigation of the bi-
directional loading test. The result was analysed using
Davisson and Chin methods to obtain the bearing capacity
of the pile. Furthermore, the disturbed and undisturbed
sample data were used as drilling results at points BH-04 in
the bridge's pylon structure. Using field tests and soil data,
the adhesion factor was back-calculated using empirical
equations proposed by some researchers. Moreover, Plaxis
2D was used in the numerical analysis model. The average
adhesion factors in the sub-layers calculated from these two
points are 0.943 in the upward position and 0.191 in the
downward position at B7. The adhesion factors obtained are
very similar to Kulhaway and Jackson's data (1989).
Furthermore, PLAXIS 2D Modeling produces adhesion
factors of 0.97 and 0.94 in very soft clay and soft clay layers,
respectively, while 0.56 and 0.48 in stiff clay and very stiff
clay. These adhesion factor distributions resemble those
reported by Kulhawy and Jackson (1989) and Coduto
(1989).
Keywords: bored pile, adhesion factor, shear strength, finite
element method, PLAXIS 2D
I. INTRODUCTION
The 850‒meter‒long Sei Alalak Bridge was built in three
sections: an access road in the form of a road network with a
soft pavement structure, a piled slab structure, and a cable‒
stayed single pylon structure on the bridge's main span. The
main span of the Sei Alalak Bridge has 52 bored piles,
which are divided into 32 points on the pylon, 12 points on
the counterweight, and 8 points on the abutments. The bored
pile on the bridge's main span is 1.8 meters in diameter and
70 meters in length from the cut of level.
The bored piles are built in a location that has a 30 m soft
soil layer from the surface. The soil at the project location is
dominated by a soft soil layer. Soil investigation results
show soil stratigraphy that consists of various types of
consistency of the clay layer and a sand layer. The pile's end
bearing is supported by a stiff clay layer rather than a hard
soil layer. Analysis of pile capacity still uses assumptions
and the correlation of soil parameters. One of them is the
adhesion factor ().
Determining skin friction capacity on bearing capacity of
bored piles analysis is dependent on many factors between
pile and soil. Over the years, many researchers have created
equations for determining adhesion factors and they can
prove them with analytical and numerical methods in their
analysis [1]. The analysis demonstrates that the study can
explain the effect of the adhesion factor and skin friction
capacity in the clay layer.
Various adhesion factors depend on undrained shear
strength (cu) and construction method [2]. In stiff clay layer,
Skempton [3] suggests 0.47 as . That value is used in
residual soil in Singapore [3]. The NSPT value can be used to
calculate pile friction (fs). Meyerhoft [4] suggests fs = 2N
(kPa) for a driven pile in the sand. The equation is also used
in residual soil in Singapore but at a pressure of no more
than 120 kPa [5].
One of the methods used to determine the bearing
capacity of bored piles is the bi‒directional static loading
test using the Osterberg Cell test (OC test) method. The
method was very effective in determining the bearing
capacity of the bored pile on Suramadu Bridge [6]. It was
found that the bored pile's bearing capacity did not meet the
requirements. To increase the foundation's bearing capacity,
a grouting was performed at the foundation's tip, followed
by an OC test to determine its resistance after improvement.
Ideally, the friction resistance is determined from a
systematic study of the load transfer characteristics obtained
from the pile bearing capacity test equipped with a strain
gauge along the pile. However, because this method is very
expensive, the load transfer characteristics can be
determined from tests in the same soil conditions [2].

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

 Andika Mulrosha & Yulian Firmana Arifin / IJCE, 8(6), 38-47, 2021
Additionally, the number of piles tested is small, ranging
between one and two [7‒10]. Several researchers have
conducted research on bored piles in soft to stiff clay soils
with a load test and equipped with equipment so that the
load transfer on the pile can be determined [2, 9‒11]. The
correlation between the parameters obtained in the field and
the relevant soil conditions can be used to improve the
design of the bored pile in the future [2]. The results
obtained are compared between the bearing capacity
calculated by empirical equations and also testing in the
field.
Besides analytical methods, numerical study with finite
element methods is also used in any case of soil-pile
interaction. Some researchers use PLAXIS 2D for learning
about pile behavior [7, 11‒15]. The aim of this study was to
use both analytical and numerical methods to determine the
adhesion factors of soft to stiff clay.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
According to Kiprotich [11], a foundation is basically a
long structural element that transfers load from the upper
structure through compressible soil (soft soil) to a more
suitable material, like rock or stiff soil. If the hard soil layer
is too deep, pile foundations are one of the deep foundations
used to support the upper structure. This foundation is used
to support the structure with an uplift force. The use of a
deep foundation has the following advantages:
a. To transfer structure -load which located on water or soft
soil layer to hard soil layer.
b. To transfer load to soft soil until a certain depth, the
foundation can use a friction soil pile to keep the load
transferred and supported.
c. To give resistance force that is affected by uplift forces
caused by hydrostatic pressure.
d. To withstand horizontal and inclining forces,
e. To protect the foundation of the structure from surface
water erosion.
Besides that, a large bored pile foundation can also be used
as an energy pile that functions as a heating or cooling
building system [16].
Based on load transfer from the upper structure, the pile
foundation has 3 types of foundation:
a. Pile foundation with end bearing pile. This pile will
support the supported soil layer by passing some of the
upper structure load through the end-bearing point.
b. Pile foundation with friction pile. This pile will progress
to an upper structure load through skin friction of the pile.
c. The combination of end bearing and skin friction.
The pile foundation generally consists of a bored pile,
precast pile, steel pipe pile, timber pile, and a composite
pile. Bored pile construction demands temporary steel casing
of at least 15 m and bentonite as protection from sliding.
Soil disturbance can occur when a cylinder is pulled out
39
while the concrete is being poured. Because of that, in
calculating the pile capacity in the sand layer, Tomlinson
[17] suggests using the angle of friction from disturbing the
sample, except if the pile is set on gravel.
The effect of bored piles installation on the adhesion
factor between the pile and the soil surrounding the pile was
studied, and it was discovered that the adhesion factor is
lower than the undrained shear strength before pile
installation. The stability of the soil in the vicinity of the
bored hole may be the cause of this problem. When pouring
concrete, water ground flows into a low-pressure zone in the
vicinity of the borehole, increasing soil pliability. If boring
and pouring are done in one or two hours, the soil meets
requirements will be reduced [18]. The base condition was
also affected by the bore hole, resulting in increased
settlement.
Many researchers, including Reese and Wright [19],
Meyerhoff [20], and Terzaghi and Peck [21], have found a
correlation between NSPT and pile capacities, but the pile
capacity results are too conservative. Bowles [22] was
supposed to increase Meyerhoff theory's allowable pile
capacity by 50%.
The general equation for determining pile capacity, which
is derived from total end bearing capacity and skin friction
capacity, is:
Qu = Qp + Qs - Wp (2.1)
where Qu = ultimate total pile capacity (ton), Qp = ultimate
bearing capacity (ton), Qs = ultimate shear friction capacity
(ton), and Wp= pile weight (ton).
Equation 2.2 is used to calculate the end bearing pile
capacity of cohesive soil. Equation 2.3 can be used to
calculate the end bearing pile capacity per unit area qp in
cohesive soil. Furthermore, Reese and Wright [19] shows a
correlation between qp and NSPT in non-cohesive soil.
Qp =Ap.qp (2.2)
qp = 9.cu (2.3)
cu = 2/3.NSPT (2.4)
where Qp = Ultimate end beading pile capacity (ton), Ap =
bored pile Area (m2), qp = end bearing capacity per unit area
(ton/m), and cu = Undrained shear strength (ton/m2).
Moreover, skin friction pile capacity can be calculated
using Equation 2.5.
Qs = f. Li. p (2.5)
where f = skin friction per unit area (ton/m2), Li = layer
length (m), and p = circumference of pile (m), and Qs =
ultimate skin friction capacity (ton).
For cohesive soil, the skin friction per unit area can be
calculated using Equation 2.6.
f = α. cu (2.6)
where α = adhesion factor and cu = indrained shear strength
(ton/m2).
 Andika Mulrosha & Yulian Firmana Arifin / IJCE, 8(6), 38-47, 2021

𝑄×𝐿
According to the Reese and Wright [19] Method, α = 0.55 𝑆𝑒 = 𝐴 (2.9)
for cohesive soil. And, for non-cohesive soil, friction 𝑝 ×𝐸𝑝

resistence can be obtained from a correlation with NSPT. Whereas Se= elastic settlement (mm), q= load test (N),
Moreover, using the Kulhaway [23] method, it can be L= pile length (mm), Ap= area of pile (mm2), and E=
determined from the undrained shearing resistance vs Modulus elasticity of soil (MPa).
adhesion factor graph. Another method, Resse and O’Neil c. Draw a line from (0,0) based on the elastic settlement
[24], reported the adhesion factor as a function of undrained equation.
shear strength with a range as shown in Table 1.
d. Line 2 should be drawn parallel to line 1 at a distance of
Table 1 Adhesion Factor Reese and O’Neil [24] x, which can be calculated using the equation below.
𝐷𝑓𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑠𝑖
cu α 𝑥 = 0.15 +
120
(𝑖𝑛) (2.10)
kN/m2
< 191.52 0.55 The pile foundation capacity is defined as the intersection
191.52 – 287.28 0.49 of the load-settlement curve and the straight line.
287.28 – 383.04 0.42 Chin’s method [29, 30] is one of the methods frequently
383.04 – 478.80 0.38 used to analyze ultimate pile capacity in loading tests. The
478.80 – 574.56 0.35 ultimate pile capacity can be calculated in the following
574.56 – 670.32 0.33 steps.
670.32 – 766.08 0.32 a. Draw ratio settlement/load vs settlement curve.
766.08 – 861.84 0.31 b. Draw a straight line to represent the data distribution, or
861.84 As rock use Excel to create a trendline.
Following that, various adhesion factors are obtained c. Determine the gradient or inclined part of the linear
from Cerruibini and Vesia [1], and the reported adhesion equation.
factor data of Weltman and Healy [25] is digitized and is
shown in the equation below. The following equation can be used to calculate the
ultimate load.
𝛼 = 83.54𝐶𝑢−1.032 (2.7) 1
𝑄𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡 = 𝑎×𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑛 (2.11)
Then, validation of adhesion factor is adopted from
Kulhawy & Jackson [26] method was gained from Whereas the a value falls between 1.2 and 1.4.
distribution data on 106 bored pile in which 41-piles of them
were adjusted on compression test and 65-piles of them were III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES
adjusted on tensile test [1]. The result obtained is as To obtain data on soil parameters and stratigraphy at the
Equation 2.8. Meanwhile, as shown in Table 2, Coduto [27] site, eight drill points were used in the soil investigation. The
observed a relationship between Cu and alpha for bored and soil data in BH4 (borehole) was closest to the bored pile
driven piles. under review (B7). Fig. 1 depicts the results of the SPT and
𝛼 = 0.21 + 0.26 𝑃𝑎/𝑐𝑢 (2.10) soil layer tests in BH4. At a certain depth, undisturbed
samples were also taken and tested in the lab. Table 3
Table 2 Correlation between  and cu for Bored Piles summarizes the findings.
and Driven Piles [27] A bi-axial static loading test with a hydraulic mechanism
Type Equation Range running parallel to the load was used. A load cell was
installed in bored pile reinforcement as part of the
Bored piles 𝛼 for cu  51 kPa foundation, and it works in two directions (bi-directional):
Bored Piles 𝛼 =1 for cu  51 kPa upward (to resist skin friction and pile foundation weight)
= 0.32𝛼+ 250𝑐𝑢−1.5 and downward (to resist pile foundation weight) (to resist of
Driven Piles for cu  32 kPa skin friction and end-bearing). The load cell was placed at a
Driven Piles 𝛼 =1 for cu  51 kPa depth of 42 meters (Fig. 1). Both resistances in a part are
= 0.35 + 170𝑐𝑢−1.6 automatically recorded by a load cell. The term "load cell"
Determining pile foundation capacity can be done using a
refers to the reactions that take place on a bored pile
field pile load test. And the data is analyzed using the
foundation. When the soil parameter and tools reached their
Davisson and Chin methods. The following is the method
maximum load, the loading test was stopped. Bi-axial
suggested by Davisson [28].
loading tests were conducted in the field with B7 pile. Table
a. Determine load vs settlement curve. 4 summarizes the pile data.
b. Determine elastic settlement that be calculated with
The empirical methods of gaining an interpretation of pile
below equation.
capacity results were used in the back‒calculation analysis
to obtain the adhesion factor. Back‒calculation was

40
 Andika Mulrosha & Yulian Firmana Arifin / IJCE, 8(6), 38-47, 2021

performed using the empirical equations according to the up to a depth of 100 meters. The geometry of the material
pile foundation theory (Table 5). To represent the position was determined using field and laboratory data.
and validate this calculation, the adhesion factor's result is Axisymmetric modeling was used to generate the foundation
plotted and compared with other adhesion factors obtained (Fig. 2). The soil model was created using the Mohr‒
by other researchers. Coulomb model with data summarized in Table 6.
The finite element method is used to create a bored pile Furthermore, the concrete used was linearly elastic and non-
foundation model in the final stage. The PLAXIS 2D porous in nature. The settlement as a function of load was
computer program was used in the FEM model. PLAXIS 2D the subject of the results of the analysis. As a result, the
is now the most widely used software for creating FEM outcome was used to calculate the ultimate load-settlement
models [31]. the program was used to build a pile foundation curve, which was then compared to the field load test
model and soil layer by analyzing pile capacity and obtained from the bi-axial test. Data that was not obtained in
settlement using the finite element method. Asymmetry was this study, such as the soil's modulus of elasticity and
used as the analysis model. The elements used in the final Poisson's ratio, was taken from the literature, as shown in
product were desirable. Table 7.
With 50 m-horizontal axes, a geometry model was created
Table 3. Soil samples laboratory test results
Location of Depth of Sample Spesific IP Gravel Sand Silt Clay
No USCS
Sample Sample (m) Type Gravity (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
1 BH - 4 27 - 27.3 DS SC 2.66 11.21 0 67.79 23.53 8.69
2 BH - 4 33 - 33.3 DS SW 2.667 - 0 97.74 2.27
3 BH - 4 38 - 38.3 DS SW 2.678 - 0 98.84 1.17
4 BH - 4 43 - 43.3 DS SW 2.677 - 0 97.68 2.33
5 BH - 4 48 - 48.3 DS CH 2.617 61.09 0 0.56 40.1 59.35
6 BH - 4 59 - 59.3 DS CH 2.653 67.13 0 0.2 43.86 55.93
7 BH - 4 73 - 73.3 DS CH 2.59 72.35 0 0.16 54.31 45.53
8 BH - 4 93 - 93.3 DS CH 2.642 74.16 0 0.13 48.79 51.09

Table 4. Bored pile foundation data of B7

GeoCell
G.L COL Total Bor GeoCell Test
Diameter Depth
Pile No. Elevation Elevation Length Log Elevation Load
Location
mm m m m m Ton m
B7 West
1800 13.354 11.131 73.336 BH-04 -28.646 2x900 42
Pylon

Table 5 Back-calculation equation on Upward and Downward

No. Depth Position Equation

𝑄𝑢𝑝𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑑 = 𝛴𝑄𝑠, 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑦
𝑄 + Σ𝑄𝑠, 𝑠𝑎𝑛𝑑
1 0-42 Upward 𝑠,𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑦
= 𝛼𝑐𝑢 𝑙𝑖 𝑝
𝑄𝑠,𝑠𝑎𝑛𝑑
𝑄 = 0.1𝑁𝑆𝑃𝑇
𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑛𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑑 = 𝑙𝑄𝑖 𝑝 + Σ𝑄
𝑝 𝑠, 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑦 + Σ𝑄𝑠, 𝑠𝑎𝑛𝑑
𝑄𝑝
2 42-73 Downward = 9𝑐𝑢 𝐴𝑝
𝑄𝑠,𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑦
=
𝑄 𝛼𝑐𝑢 𝑙𝑖 𝑝
𝑠,𝑠𝑎𝑛𝑑
= 0.1𝑁𝑆𝑃𝑇 𝑙𝑖 𝑝

41
 Andika Mulrosha & Yulian Firmana Arifin / IJCE, 8(6), 38-47, 2021

Table 6. Soil properties used in finite element analysis

Bore Depth n sat E cu ф

Soil Type Nspt ⱴ
Hole ID (m) kN/m³ kN/m³ kN/m² kN/m² ( )ͦ
0 - 15 Very Soft Clay 2 14.67 16.13 3106.67 0.30 10 -
15 - 25 Soft Clay 3 15.33 16.87 4143.33 0.40 15 -
25 - 30 Loose Sand 5 13.78 15.16 16483.33 0.29 - 28.1
BH - 04 Medium Dense
30 - 48 16.95 18.64 24876.32 0.36 - 33.9
Sand 25
48 - 67 Medium Clay 12 17.33 19.07 8626.67 0.40 60 -
67 - 100 Stiff Clay 24 19.56 21.51 22616.67 0.47 120 -

Table 7. Soil’s Modulus Elasticity and Poisson’s ratio

based on soil type [32]

Es Poisson's
Type of Soil
MN/m 2 ratio, s
Loose sand 10.35 - 24.15 0.2 - 0.4
Medium dense sand 17.25 - 27.60 0.25 - 0.4
Dense sand 34.50 - 55.20 0.30 - 0.45
Bored pile Silty sand 10.35 - 17.25 0.20 - 0.40
Sand and gravel 69.00 - 172.50 0.15 - 0.35
Soft clay 2.07 - 5.18
Medium clay 5.18 - 10.35 0.20 - 0.50
Stiff clay 10.35 - 24.15

Load cell

Fig. 1 Soil stratigrafi and NSPT data Fig. 2. Mesh generate model and an example result of
Plaxis

42
 Andika Mulrosha & Yulian Firmana Arifin / IJCE, 8(6), 38-47, 2021

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS downward positions.

The field test results from the B7 pile loading test are d. Equation 2.11 was used to calculate the ultimate load
shown in Table 7. The data was then plotted on a graft, as from the bored pile using the gradient of the trendline
shown in Fig. 3. Both upward and downward deformation equation.
data were analyzed as a single curve. Table 7 shows the final
Table 8 Bored Piles Test Result of B7
result. Davisson and Chin methods were used to determine
the pile's bearing capacity, as shown in Fig. 3 and 4. The
Load Load Downward Displacement (mm)
bearing capacity of the pile was analyzed using Davisson
and Chin methods. Current Cummulative
2×kN 2×ton
Grade Displacement
20.00
0 0 0 0
Load (ton)
0.00 900 90 0.00 0.00
0 500 1000 1800 180 0.10 0.10
-20.00
Displacement (mm)

2700 270 0.11 0.21

-40.00 3600 360 0.21 0.42

-60.00
4500 450 1.10 1.52
5400 540 3.48 5.00
-80.00
6300 630 6.83 11.83
-100.00 7200 720 8.21 20.04
8100 810 19.45 39.49
-120.00
9000 900 62.47 101.96
Fig.3. Load-Displacement Curve of B7 is Both of
Downward and Upward Position 0.014

0.012
Settlement/Load (mm/kN)

Load (kN)
0.01
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
0 0.008

20 0.006
Settlement (mm)

40 0.004
y = 0.00011x + 0.00027
60 0.002 R² = 0.99596
80 0
0 50 100 150
100 Settlement (mm)
120 Fig. 5 Interpretation Results of Downward Load
Fig. 4 Downward Load Displacement of B7 Displacement Curve of B7 Piles with Chin’s Method

A. Chin’s Method B. Davisson’s Method

Determining the ultimate load with the chin method can
be obtained at some stages, i.e.
a. Tabulate the data that will be analyzed and display it in
Table 8.
b. Draw a scattered graph with y-coordinates as
settlement/load and x-coordinates as settlement.
c. Create trendline linear and equation plotting data
distribution. Fig. 5 and 6 show the data in upward and
The Davisson method can be used to calculate the
ultimate load at various stages, i.e.
a. Tabulate the data will be analyzed that can be present
such as Chin’s method data.
b. Determine elastic settlement using Equation 2.9.
c. Draw a linear line based on the elastic settlement
occurring.
d. Determine the x distance and draw a parallel shifting line
(line 2) with Equation 2.10.

43
 Andika Mulrosha & Yulian Firmana Arifin / IJCE, 8(6), 38-47, 2021

e. Draw a vertical line straight to the x coordinate from the
intersection between Line 2 and the load vs settlement
curve. The outcomes are depicted in the Fig. 7.
The bearing capacity of the pile is taken at the smallest
value of the two methods. Using back‒calculation using
empirical equations as shown in Table 5, the adhesion factor
was obtained and summarized in Table 9.
0.00045
Settlement/Load (mm/kN)
results from back-calculation analysis, were used to compare
the approached adhesion factor results in Fig. 8. The upward
position of the adhesion factor indicated a soft soil layer,
whereas the downward position indicated a hard soil layer.
In Fig. 9, the approached adhesion factor is based on
Coduto [27], and the graph shows that the adhesion factor
obtained through back-calculation analysis is comparable to
the adhesion factor of the upward position rather than the
downward condition. Similar to the previous figure (Fig.

0.0004 10), the upward layer's adhesion factor is soft soil, while the
0.00035 downward layer's adhesion factor is stiff clay layer. In Fig.
0.0003
10, the approach to the adhesion factor is based on the
Cerrubini and Vesia [1] analysis, which represents the
0.00025
adhesion factor results from Weltman and Healy [25]. The
0.0002 curve in the figure depicts the adhesion factor of soft clay,
0.00015 which is determined by back-calculation close to the
0.0001 y = 0.00010x + 0.00006 trendline rather than stiff clay.
0.00005 R² = 0.96022 1.20
0 Upward
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 Downward
Settlement (mm) Kulhawy&Jackson (1989)
0.80
Fig. 6. Interpretation Results of Upward Load Adhesion Factor
Displacement Curve of B7 Pile using Chin’s Method 0.60

Load (kN) 0.40

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
0.20
0

20 0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Settlement (mm)

y = 0.00059x + 18.79600 Cu/Pa

40
Fig. 8 Correlation between  and Cu/Pa for Bored Pile
60 (Kulhawy and Jackson) [26]
80 1.20
Upward
100 R² = 0.9971
1.00 Downward
120 Coduto1994
0.80
Adhesion Factor

Fig. 7 Downward Load Interpretation of B7 Piles with

Davisson’s Method 0.60
Table 9 Adhesion factor result of B7
0.40
Qu Pakai (kN) Metode  average
0.20
Upward 8000.00 Chin's 0.943
0.00
Downward 7272.73 Chin's 0.191 0 50 100 150 200
Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
The adhesion factor results from back-calculation analysis Fig. 9 Undrained Shear Strength vs  for Bored Pile
via adhesion factor from literatures are then checked. The (Coduto) [24]
data for this analysis comes from Kulhawy & Jackson [26],
Coduto [27], and Weltman & Healy [28]. Kulhawy and
Jackson [26], in which the graph shows adhesion factor

44
 Andika Mulrosha & Yulian Firmana Arifin / IJCE, 8(6), 38-47, 2021

1.00
demonstrate that bearing capacity analysis is accurate when
Kulhawy and Jacson's [26] adhesion factor data is used.
Additionally, the result indicates that the adhesion factor
0.80 calculated using this finite element is more consistent with
published data. This is because finite element modeling
Adhesion Factor

allows for the distribution of bearing capacity contributions,

0.60 particularly in the downward portion between skin friction
and end bearing analysis.

0.40 0

0.20 20

Settlement (mm)
40
0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250
Undrained Shear Strength (kPa) 60

Fig. 10 Various Adhesion factor for Piles of B7 (Weltman 80 FEM element result
and Healy 1978) [25]

The three approaches all produced the same trend, with 100
the adhesion factor in the upward section closely matching
the published data. While in the downward position, the
120
obtained adhesion factor is still significantly less than the
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
commonly used value. This is because, in the upward
position, only skin friction supports and analyzes the pile. Load (ton)
While the downward section includes an end resistance,
some of the parameters used are still approximations. Fig. 11 Equivalent Curve Top Load – Settlement from
PLAXIS 2D
Three approaches to adhesion factor position are obtained
through back-calculations close to the data distribution of
Kulhawy and Jackson's adhesion factor data [26]. Thus, the 1.20
results obtained demonstrate that bearing capacity analysis Very Soft Clay
will produce accurate results when Kulhawy and Jacson's Soft Clay
1.00
[26] adhesion factor data is applied to the project location. Stiff Clay
C. Plaxis Analysis Stiff Clay 2
0.80
Adhesion Factor

PLAXIS Connect Edition was used for numerical Kulhawy&Jackson (1989)

analysis. Fig. 11 illustrates the equivalent top load-
settlement model result. The graph from the PLAXIS 2D 0.60
model is shown to be close to the field results based on the
model results obtained in the figure. As a result, it can be
0.40
interpreted as a conclusion regarding the soil parameters
used. The friction coefficient determined by the PLAXIS
Model was then used to calculate the adhesion factor in the 0.20
interaction of the bored pile section with the clay layer. The
obtained adhesion factor is then plotted against the adhesion
factor distribution data from Kulhawy and Jackson [26], 0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Coduto [27], and Weltman & Healy [25].
According to Fig.s 12‒14, adhesion factors obtained using Cu/Pa
PLAXIS 2D Modelling conform to the adhesion factor data
proposed by Kulhawy and Jackson [26], Coduto [27], and Fig. 12. Distribution Data of Adhesion Factor from
Output PLAXIS through Adhesion Factor of Kulhawy
Weltman and Healy [25]. This instance bears some
resemblance to empirical adhesion factors, such as those and Jackson data [26]
depicted in Fig. 12. The results obtained can then be used to

45
 Andika Mulrosha & Yulian Firmana Arifin / IJCE, 8(6), 38-47, 2021

1.20
very soft clay and soft clay layers, respectively, as well as
Very Soft Clay
0.56 and 0.48 in stiff clay and very stiff clay. These adhesion
factor distributions are similar to those reported by Kulhawy
1.00 Stiff Clay and Jackson (1989) and Coduto (1989).
Soft Clay
REFERENCES
0.80 Stiff Clay 2
Adhesion Factor

[1] C. Cherubini, G. Vessia, Reliablity approach for the side resistance of

Coduto1994 piles by means of the total stress analysis ( Method). Can. Geotech. J.
44 (2008) 1378-1390. doi:10.1139/t07-061
0.60
[2] M.F. Chang, and B.B. Broms, Design of bored piles in residual soils
based on field-performance data. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 28(2)
(1991) 200–209. doi:10.1139/t91-027
0.40 [3] A.W. Skempton, Cast in-situ bored piles in London clay.
Geotechnique. 9 (1959) 153-157.
[4] G.G. Meyerhof, The bearing capacity and settlements of
0.20 pile foundations. ASCE Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division. 102(GT3) (1976) 197-228.
[5] B.B. Broms, M.F. Chang, and A.T.C. Goh, Bored piles
0.00 in residual soils and weathered rocks in Singapore. Proceedings of
0 50 100 150 200 the 1st International Geotechnical Seminar on Deep Foundations on
Bored and Auger Piles, Ghent, Belgium, (1988) 17-34.
Undrained Shear Strength (kPa) [6] M. Irsyam, A. Sahadewa, A Boesono, S. Soebagyo. Pengaruh
Strength Reduction Tanah Clay – Shale Akibat Pelaksanaan
Pemboran Terhadap Nilai Daya Dukung Pondasi Tiang di Jembatan
Fig. 13 Distribution Data of Adhesion Factor from Suramadu Berdasarkan Hasil Tes OC. Jurnal Teknik Sipil. 4(2)
Output PLAXIS through Data of Coduto [27] (2007) 69-92. https://doi.org/10.5614/jts.2007.14.2.1
[7] M. Ezzat, Y. Zaghloul, T. Sorour, A. Hefny, M. Eid, Numerical
Very Soft Clay Simulation of Axially Loaded to Failure Large Diameter Bored Pile.
International Journal of Geotechnical and Geological Engineering.
1.20 Soft Clay 13(5) (2019) 283-297.
Stiff Clay [8] G. Gao, M. Gao, Q. Chen, J. Yang. Field Load Testing Study of
Vertical Bearing Behavior of a Large Diameter Belled Cast-in-Place
1.00 Stiff Clay 2
Pile. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering. 23 (2019) (2009–2016).
Weltman and Healy (1978) [9] G. Dai, R. Salgado, W. Gong, and Y. Zhang. Load tests on full-scale
Adhesion Factor

0.80 bored pile groups. Can. Geotech. J. 49 (2012) 1293–1308.

0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0 50 100 150
Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Fig. 14 Distribution Data of Adhesion Factor from
Output PLAXIS through Adhesion Factor of Weltman
and Healy data [25]
V. CONCLUSIONS
Back-calculation was used to calculate an adhesion factor
based on the interpretation of the pile's load capacity, both
upward and downward.The average adhesion factor obtained
is 0.943 upward and 0.191 downward on Piles of B7. The
adhesion factor result was compared with the adhesion
factor curve of the other adhesion factor data. Back-
calculation has resulted in close to the distribution data of
the Kulhawy and Jackson (1989) data. PLAXIS 2D
Modeling also generates adhesion factors of 0.97 and 0.94 in
[10] Q.Q. Zhang, Z.M. Zhang, S.C. Li. Investigation into Skin Friction of
Bored Pile Including Influence of Soil Strength at Pile Base. Marine
Georesources & Geotechnology. 31(1) (2013) 1-16 DOI:
10.1080/1064119X.2011.626506
[11] N. Kripotich, Modelling of Negative Skin Friction on Tiang Bor in
Clay. Chalmers University of Technology. Sweden. (2015).
[12] M. Eid , A. Hefny, T. Sorour, Y. Zaghloul, M. Ezzat. Full-Scale Well
Instrumented Large Diameter Bored Pile Load Test in Multi
Layered Soil: A Case Study of Damietta Port New Grain Silos
Project. International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology.
8(1) (2018) 85-92.
200 250 [13] M. Hoľko, J. Stacho. Comparison of Numerical Analyses with a Static
Load Test of a Continuous Flight Auger Pile. Slovak Journal of Civil
Engineering. 22(4) (2014) 1-10.
[14] P.J. Vardanega, M.G. Williamson, M.D. Bolton. Bored pile design in
stiff clay II: mechanisms and uncertainty. Proceedings of the Institution
of Civil Engineers: Geotechnical Engineering 165. (2015) 233-246.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geng.11.00063.
[15] R.P. Cunha, A.F.B. Cordeiro, M.M. Sales, Numerical assessment of an
imperfect pile group with de-fective pile both at initial and
reinforced conditions.Soils and Rocks. 33(2) (2010) 81-93.
[16] W. Ounaies, Geotechnical Impacts of Energy Piles. IJCE. 6(2) (2019)
1-3 doi: 10.14445/23488352/IJCE-V6I2P101
[17] M.J. Tomlinson. Pile design and construction practice. Seventh Edition.
Pearson education limited. (2001).
[18] D.J. Palmer, R. Holland, The Construction of Large Diameter Bored
Piles with Particular Reference to Londo n Clay, Proceedings
Conference on Large Bored Piles, ICE, London, (1966) 105- 120.
[19] L.C. Reese, and S.J. Wright, Drilled Shaft Manual-Construction
Procedures and Design for Axial Loading, Vol. 1, U.S. Dept. of
Transportation, Implementation Division, HDV-22, Implementation
Package. (1977) 77-21.
[20] G.G. Meyerhof, Generai Report : Outside Europe, Proceedings

46
 Andika Mulrosha & Yulian Firmana Arifin / IJCE, 8(6), 38-47, 2021

Conference on Penetration Testing, Stockholm. 2 (1974) 40-48. [27]
[21] K. Terzaghi, and R. B. Peck. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice.
2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. (1967) 729 pp. [28]
[22] J.E. Bowles. Foundation analysis and design. Mcgraw-Hill
International Book Company. 3rd Edition. (1982)
[23] F.H. Kulhawy. Limiting Tip and Side Resistance-Fact or Fallacy, [29]
Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations, ed. J.R. Meyer, ASCE, New
York, N.Y. (1984) 80-98.
[24] L.C. Reese, and M.W. O'Neill, Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures [30]
and Design Methods, FHWA Publication No. FHWA-JI-88-042 atau
ADSC Publication No. ADSC-TL-4, August. (1988) 564.
[25] A.J. Weltman, and P.R. Healy. Piling in boulder clay and other [31]
glacial tills. Construction Industry Research and Information
Association, Report PG5. (1978). [32]
[26] F.H. Kulhawy, and C.S. Jackson. Some observations on undrained side
resistance of drilled shafts. Foundation Engineering: current principles
and practices Congress Evanston Illinois. 2 (1989) 1011–1025.
D.P. Coduto. Foundation design, principles and practices. Prentice Hall
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.Y. (1984).
M.T. Davisson, High Capacity Piles. Proceedings, Lecture Series,
Innovations in Foundation Construction, ASCE, Illinois Section,
Chicago, March 22, (1972) 81-112.
F.K. Chin. Estimation of the ultimate load of piles from tests not carried
to failure. Proceedings of the Second Southeast Asian Conference on
Soil Engineering, (1970) 83-91.
F.K. Chin. The inverse slope as a prediction of ultimate bearing
capacity of piles, Proceedings 3rd Southeast Asian Conference on Soil
Engineering. (1972) 83-91.
Plaxis. General Information Manual: Connect edition V21.01. Bentley.
2021.
B.M. Das. and K. Sobhan. Principles of Geotechnical Engineering.
Ninth Edition, USA : Cengage Learning. (2018).

47